Time for Hubbard to apologise for his huge ponzi that is going to cost all of us

There is little difference between the Hubbards and Hotchin and Watson. The latter collected flash houses flash cars and flash women whereas the Hubbards collected farms all of course with other peoples money. In the end it was all about ego.

So what makes SCF any different from Hanover or allied finance? The only difference I can see is size, and that SFC is really too big to fail, becuase it will cause a domino effect throughout the country, especially to farmers, who are largely national voters. However collectively all teh other finacne comapies where much larger. If the gov buys the toxic bank only, for a price of around $500 million, then SCF will probably be able to get an overseas investor buying into the company, which in turn will help the shareholders. But what about poor hanover shareholders who have seen their shareprice tumble, to basically be worth nothing. 90% of hanover investors never sold their shares, soafter being promised their inital investment back when it was put into a moritorium, they end up with almost nothing. This is double standards if it goes ahead.

Too Fig to Bail    -  hic !  

this time tomorra Timaru grog stores will have sold out as the Mainlanders drown theer sorras

them SFO boys are onto it

Cupboard Unmanaged Funz

Aorangi  -  and the same to you

Irrespective of the names involved, folk like me were always expecting this bubble to burst.

They all bought into 'growth forever', not just the Hubbard types, not just the sleazier types either, but the 'mum and dad' investors too.

I could - was, to anyone who would listen - expounding just this scenario, this decade, and doing so back in the '80's.

caveat emptor, methinks.

Anyone who thought that, en masse, a whole generation could 'invest', and that somehow just handing over the 'money' would guarantee 'more back for everyone', was living in lalaland.

Even if they're getting flaky, Musical Chairs should be in their long-term memory.

When do we get to start on the regional finance compoanies that SCF took over a few years back. Now that Im looking forward to.

  Remember the day when we had a go at SCF over dairy lending on this site and they responded with 'we have minimal exposure to agriculture'. ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha
 

Tum te Tum   I did understand your sarcasm   I was just reiterating what Hubbard himself  and all his supporters have always said.

Those that have had dealings with him will know he has an enormous ego and is a complete control freak.

He ran SCF as his own private Bank  - there was no governance and his CEO was a lacky.

Once serious issues around risk and controls started to emerged in SCF last year he dealt with it by getting rid of  half the Board and some of the management  if I remember correctly

Are all the subsidaries of SFC in the same boat - sunk

interesting that the recently dumped CEO of SCF, Lachie Mcleod is getting no blame for this debacle..even though he drew a $15 million interest free loan out of SCF which is yet to be repaid.

he was in the news last week for a prop.development in paratai drive of high end townhouses that have been placed in receivership.

this dude drove the agenda for SCF for the last few years.

where's some srutiny on him?

anyone got any info there?

Where oh where are all the Hubbard supporters?

Maybe trying to defend the indefensible is becoming too hard.

I am so old that this Hubbard affair has triggered memories of Arthur Cornish.

Is anybody else as old as me?

Is there anyone out there who knows him who can tell me what makes Hubbard tick. I cannot work it out. Some call him a saint,someone calls him a control freak. I just see someone who lives simply but seems to have a huge appetite to accumulate assets.

Hubbard is in bondage serving the dark side.....he's an evil old man,and he tells lots and lots of lies...and cares for little other then himself!

unfortunately it does seem callous but I agree, but is he not covered by the GG, which I do not think SCF should ever have qualified for.

Key said tonight govt will honor the guarantee so the investors will get their money back. If govt failed to pay out then the govt gtee system would be worthless & all investors will pull funds out even from mainstream banks so there is no way the govt cannot pay out scf investors.

The real question is will govt then pursue the outfits that borrowed all the easy money from Hubbard & SCF in order to recover some of the govt gtee payout?

but isnt he looking dapper at the moment. Wait for the Chinese bashing to start and his revelation of some Government scandal leading up to the election. It will be worth the admission price.

LOL

BRING BACK A STRONGER LEADER WITH VISION ABLE TO LEAD THE TAXPAYER TO THE PROMISED LAND

you can forget that!

Winston would no how to treat Heather Roy- he is a gentlemen

RJ....sure you do today is the day of salvation!

they told that to my mum 50 years ago!! She is 72 now.

But with the LORD a day is like a thousand years so we should all be ready?

I am covered. I have a scapegoat. I hope you are not taking the mickey because are GOD os not mocked

Sweet dreams

Seems like someone is having a rant with their Caps Lock on, lol.

Chip, You said

Perhaps you could Double Shot Sam Kelt? He doesnt seem too camera shy! Ask what (if anything) he paid SCF to 'buy out' SCFs 75% of  the $39m advance  to Kelt Finance. All whilst Sandy Maier at the helm. Should provide some useful insight at  very least.

This is i think where Taxpayers will finally overheat. If its going to cost us over 1 billion, then it would be nice to think that somewhere someone is sleeping in a cold Jail room, getting eyed up by a couple of body builders.

 Personaly Im getting to the end of what I can tolerate from the National and Labor parties, If we get to give the GG to these guy's then why not the dairy farmer or the corner store,talk about moral hazard. The quality of our leadership in the past is woefull, the future looks to be more of the same.   If the Taxpayer gets to bail these guys then lets open the books, its the least we should expect. 

Just trying to stop the screaming in every random post you make bud(5 in a row is a bit much)!! I'll comment after 9.30am when the decision is announced like everyone else. Cheers though for your comment that isn't in caps and is not a rant.

 Bring the delete key!!

fresh in from NBR:

South Canterbury Finance – destined to fail?

Duncan Bridgeman | Tuesday August 31, 2010 - 07:34am

If John Key needed an excuse not to bail out South Canterbury Finance he found it in the finance company’s founder, Allan Hubbard.

While the prime minister is refusing to rule out an injection of cash into South Canterbury, up against a deadline to raise capital today, he gave strong hints yesterday that doing so would be unwise.

It was fair to say, Mr Key said, that the degree of back office book keeping and general observance of standard accounting practices at South Canterbury was in line with Mr Hubbard’s other private companies, currently in statutory management and subject to a Serious Fraud Office inquiry.

It was also fair to say, Mr Key said, that South Canterbury chief executive Sandy Maier has been faced with significant challenges since he took over in late December.

South Canterbury’s perilous state was the doing of Mr Hubbard and previous management, Mr Key added dryly.

The government should know the state of South Canterbury because Treasury has been intimately involved with the company for quite some time, certainly before the company was granted entry into the extended retail deposit scheme on April 1, and most likely before it dumped its previous auditors in February.

Since then South Canterbury’s impaired loans have ballooned from roughly $200 million to $600 million, and now estimates are as high as $700 million.

These assets have been ring fenced into a “bad bank” leading to speculation the government might use funds provisioned for the deposit scheme to buy these assets to help facilitate private investment in the rest of the company.

There is $934 million set aside for the crown scheme, thought to be enough to cover all the companies which signed up to it.

Mr Key said the crown liability for South Canterbury was about $600 million.

He said cabinet has been considering options but the priority was minimising the bill to the taxpayer. 

I am an agent in a successful company in Auckland and I am starting to see evidence of vendors starting to crack and accept offers from buyers that are well below what the vendors were expecting when they began their marketing campaigns.

so the mexican standoff between vendors and buyers is finally breaking and commonsense is prevailing at last..good!